User Avatar
TugraAktas
Joined
4 days ago
Subscription
Core

Admissions profile

LSAT
Not provided Goal score: 175
CAS GPA
Not provided
1L START YEAR
Not provided

Discussions

User Avatar
TugraAktas
13 hours ago

@SerinJ I see, that makes sense. Thanks a lot for the explanation!

1
PrepTests ·
PT13.S4.Q14
User Avatar
TugraAktas
Yesterday

@blueberry It in fact can be the case that /Persian cat is possibly satisfied even though the cat is irritating. You have a conditional chain, and ending the chain with a True statement do not tell anything about the sufficient condition.

The answer is E, not because E is false, but because E is not necessarily True.

1
User Avatar
TugraAktas
Yesterday

In a more general, formal logic setup,

A -> B

is the same as

not A or B

So

not (A->B)

is the same as

not (not A or B)

which is then in return is

A and not B

1

From what i understand, for international applicants that have less than 60 US credit hours, LSAC does not report the GPA impact on the median. First of all is this correct? How do admission comitees evaluate the normally would be splitters (higher LSAT lower GPA), since the GPA factor becomes a bit ambiguous. How is the general evaluation of such applicants?

3
PrepTests ·
PT123.S3.Q22
User Avatar
TugraAktas
2 days ago

A fast (also possibly even mental) diagraming would be

Let A = "Price of coffee beans continues to increase", B = "Coffee shop will have to increase prices", C = "Coffee shop sells non coffee products", D = "coffee sales decrease", E = "Decreased profitability". The logical components we are given

A -> B,

B -> (C or D)

C -> E

not E -> not D which also is (D ->E)

Therefore, if A is true, then so is B, then so is either C or D or both, and hence E is true. The chain yields A -> E, which exactly is the statement of C.

1
User Avatar
TugraAktas
2 days ago

In Example 4, do we not assume

False -> False

when this is not necessarily ture? Example goes

If the concentration of air pollutants is above normal for a prolonged period, then there are many more respiratory issues.

Consider this statement as A -> B. Then, the claimed implied comparison is

(B when A) is more likely than (B when not A).

Yes B is guaranteed when A holds, but we do not know whether B is guaranteed or not when A does not hold, and it could very well be the case.

With this in mind, rather than a strict comparison, it does feel like it leaves grounds for not having a winner.

1

Confirm action

Are you sure?